Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boycott IETF 127

boycott-ietf127.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 412 posts

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#51

Post by froh »

_2d30 wrote: post #37
nialse wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a historical context “wellness farms” is understood as a euphemism for concentration camp. It’s free but you can’t leave.

In what historical context was “wellness farm” used as a euphemism?

would you, in the context of fascist Germany or other totalitarian regimes with concentration camps, not understand the quoted text as cynical euphemism for such camps?

this understanding of metaphors is not that it was used then. the understanding happens today a contemporary application of historical knowledge.

and honestly, it's obvious.

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#52

Post by BlackjackCF »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #23

Is this a parody? > Beyond problems at the border, the current Secretary for Health and Human Services - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - has said that he will send those with ADHD to camps. Source: Futurism. What he actually said: > "I’m going to dedicate that revenue to creating wellness farms — drug rehabilitation farms, in rural areas all over this country," he said during the podcast. "I’m going to make it so people can…

If RFK’s comments were made in isolation, I wouldn’t be so worried.

However, you put it in context with the fact that this administration has shipped off people to an El Salvadoran prison without any due process… this becomes a lot more ominous.

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#54

Post by snotrockets »

silisili wrote: post #40
nialse wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a historical context “wellness farms” is understood as a euphemism for concentration camp. It’s free but you can’t leave.

If you talk to a parent of a child who OD'd, most commonly of fent these days, they all have this thought. What if I took them somewhere remote where there are no drugs and didn't let them leave? My heart hurts for them, but I have no idea if it's a good idea or not. Regardless, I think his heart is in the right place. Time will tell whether or not it's actually useful.

He has no heart. He is cruel, as he subscribes to the idea that a disease isn’t something you get because you rolled the dice wrong, but something that can be avoided by being “pure”. For him, pure health is never systematic or unlucky; the person is at fault.

This is not only immoral and vile, but borders on the psychopathic. The man should have never been allowed to make any decision affecting public health.

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#55

Post by sterlind »

arketyp wrote: post #20

I understand the sentiment that the Trump administration is draconian, especially for people traveling from abroad considering the new border policy. But, pardon me, how is that executive order about sex a "threat"? Listed as the top issue undermines the credibility of this petition I think.

if a post-op trans woman is arrested, she's denied access to HRT and sent to a men's prison, where she will be given to violent male inmates to pacify them. this is known as v-coding. even having a vagina doesn't exempt you from men's prison, it just makes you more likely to be repeatedly raped as the justice system grinds on. this was already the case in some US states but the EO makes it Federal.

the State Department has also announced that it considers sex markers that don't correspond to sex at birth to be fraudulent. ostensibly for the sports ban, but it actually applies to all visa applications and documentation.

combine those two facts with the administration's stated antipathy towards us, and the recent trend of Germans and Canadians being detained for weeks with no apparent cause, and I think you should see why trans women ought to avoid US travel right now.

Re: Boycott IETF 127

#58

Post by throwawayk7h »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #32
throwawayk7h wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a threat to transgender travellers; I know many in the tech industry. The U.S. is now denying entry visas to transgender travellers as well.

[flagged]

The order being reasonable or not is not germane to the topic at hand. It isn't relevant what sex a transgender person is defined to be. What matters to the boycott is that transgender people in tech are facing difficulty entering the U.S. to attend the conference. Wouldn't you agree that's a problem?
Post reply on HN